EU lets slip anti-vaping propaganda is solely motivated by money

[DrMA]

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...cts/studies_reports/ramboll-tobacco-study.pdf

Page 51
«A large number of Member States have expressed the need for clarity on the part of EU legislation with respect to the treatment of e-cigarettes from an excise duty per-spective.
Some of the Member States have reported that they would welcome the application of excise duties on e-cigarettes, citing both the need for health protection as well as the attainment of budgetary objectives.
One large Member State with a considerable market for e-cigarettes expressed its concern that as more economic operators (including the established manufacturers of excisable tobacco products) become involved with e-cigarettes, a future shift of con-sumption towards e-cigarettes can be expected. As a result, the budgetary implica-tions of not including e-cigarettes within the framework of the EU Directives may prove to be extremely significant.
The economic operators themselves raised concerns with respect to the competitive distortions caused by differentiated tax treatment between e-cigarettes and cigarettes and the inherent substitutability.»

Page 169
«In light of the increasing use of e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes,122 it is assessed that the non-inclusion of this type of product in the common framework of excisable tobacco products will have a significant negative impact on the budgetary revenues of Member States. Moreover, as Member States are taking different ap-proaches in regulating the treatment and taxation of this product, the landscape may become fragmented, negatively impacting the functioning of the internal market. As a result, this evaluation recommends the Commission to investigate further the possibil-ity of including e-cigarettes within the scope of the harmonised system of excise duty on tobacco products. It is expected that such a measure will impose some administra-tive costs on Member States (as a one off cost of setting up the system) and compli-ance costs on the operators involved.»

 

[choochoogranny]

Ta Dah! Vaping brings down governments. Do they not figure in health savings? Seems they have the same financial illiterates over there as we do here.

 

[redddog]

"Savings" is a projection. Taxes are known quantities.

This document says, in no uncertain terms, that in light of the fact that cigarette use is in decline, and thus tax revenue, e-cigs must be taxed to make up the shortfall - regardless of what they are.

Show me one government anywhere on the globe that wouldn't take a nice juicy tax hike over a projection of savings. Or better yet, how about both?!

The real issue will be when governments start to feel the pain when people start living longer. Now that's gonna be a problem.

 

[CarolT]

No, the anti-vaping propaganda is motivated by health fascist ideology, while the governments want tax revenue. And taxing e-cigs would serve the interests of both.

 

[choochoogranny]

Well, Redddog, I was wondering why medicare cut off free mamograms in annual physicals to those women over age 74 and colorectal cancer screening to those over 75. Hm-m-m-m-m I guess they want us old, unproductive buggers to die one way or another?

 

[DrMA]

No, the anti-vaping propaganda is motivated by health fascist ideology, while the governments want tax revenue. And taxing e-cigs would serve the interests of both.

Yes, but there's few ideologues and many greedy politicians

 

[QU1T]

Where the Eurostrash at!?

 

[Kent C]

Show me one government anywhere on the globe that wouldn't take a nice juicy tax hike over a projection of savings.

The United States from it's inception until February 3, 1913 (income tax amendment XVI during the Progressive Era.)

 

[Kent C]

No, the anti-vaping propaganda is motivated by health fascist ideology, while the governments want tax revenue. And taxing e-cigs would serve the interests of both.

You got it just the opposite - it's the gov't that wants to push the fascist control (they're the only ones who can use such coercion (GM can't make you buy a Chevy, but the Gov't can), and the crony fascist companies that want new "revenue" in terms of profits, gotten by the fascist gov't picking the winners rather than the free market. And, yeah, sometimes the gov't gets more tax revenue too, but that is just the means of steering business toward their cronies/contributors - taxes favoring them and not their competitors or the consumers. Sometimes it's just the regulations without the taxes - ie - whatever works best to steer the car.

Get the idea of a "greedy" businessman (they all operate for profit potential) in front of a Representative who won't take a bribe or a quid pro quo 'contribution'. Nothing happens. No regulation, no tax loophole that favors any business - and even IF it was some 'fascist ideological businessman' (an oxymoron when there's no gov't involved) - nothing happens to feed that ideology.

 

[Steamix]

No surprises here ... presidential election campaigns nowadays run a tab of around 1 billion bucks - for a job that pays $400k per annum...

So there's gotta be some 'fringe benefits', else it wouldn't make sense economically ...

For the love of the country ? Hm, hard-to-believe words from the mouths of corporations headquartered in the Cayman Islands or other tax havens...

 

[Bill Godshall]

Page 169
«In light of the increasing use of e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes,122 it is assessed that the non-inclusion of this type of product in the common framework of excisable tobacco products will have a significant negative impact on the budgetary revenues of Member States.

Considering only excise tax revenue (while ignoring even larger government expenditures to treat cigarette caused diseases) when analyzing and planning government budgets is fiscal incompetence.

If taxes are applied to e-cigs, future government expenditures for treating cigarette caused diseases will be much higher than if taxes are NOT applied to e-cigs.
Besides, the costs of treating cigarette caused diseases are far greater than the tax revenue governments could generate from taxing e-cigs at 100%.

 

[redddog]

The United States from it's inception to February 3, 1913 (income tax amendment XVI) during the Progressive Era.

Maybe. But the problem that drove the revolutionary war wasn't necessarily over taxes. It was that the taxes went to Britain.

I agree though. That's about as close as ity gets.

 

[Kent C]

Maybe. But the problem that drove the revolutionary war wasn't necessarily over taxes. It was that the taxes went to Britain.

I agree though. That's about as close as ity gets.

True, the taxes went to England and taxes weren't the only problem that drove the revolution - freedom of religion, speech, press, etc. but the acts that precipitated the revolution and were the major drivers of unrest, were the Stamp act, Declaratory Act, Townshend Act - all taxes.

Once formed, the US had their own taxes of course - excise, import/export stuff, but no income tax that stifles productivity. And the gov't wasn't as 'tax hungry' (which I was addressing), as it has become after the progressive era, new deal, great society and the 'fundamental transformation of America as we know it'.

 

[AndriaD]

You got it just the opposite - it's the gov't that wants to push the fascist control (they're the only ones who can use such coercion (GM can't make you buy a Chevy, but the Gov't can), and the crony fascist companies that want new "revenue" in terms of profits, gotten by the fascist gov't picking the winners rather than the free market. And, yeah, sometimes the gov't gets more tax revenue too, but that is just the means of steering business toward their cronies/contributors - taxes favoring them and not their competitors or the consumers. Sometimes it's just the regulations without the taxes - ie - whatever works best to steer the car.

Get the idea of a "greedy" businessman (they all operate for profit potential) in front of a Representative who won't take a bribe or a quid pro quo 'contribution'. Nothing happens. No regulation, no tax loophole that favors any business - and even IF it was some 'fascist ideological businessman' (an oxymoron when there's no gov't involved) - nothing happens to feed that ideology.

I agree with you, completely. But, just as a curiosity... do you really this this creature exists -- "a Representative who won't take a bribe or a quid pro quo 'contribution'" -- because I'm afraid they've all become extinct. If they ever existed at all.

Andria

 

[redddog]

We agree, Kent.

All those taxes (Stamp, Townsend, decloratory etc) were taxes that were Britain bound.

The original forefathers were badass and were driven by all the right things - freedoms and autonomy. But, there wasn't the massive politcal and social service infrastructure right away. Domestic taxation still left a bad taste in people's mouths but also weren't as necessary because there wasn't all that much to fund.

It didn't take long for the establishment to figure out how easy it was to raise money though, when the need was argued for.

 

[Kent C]

I agree with you, completely. But, just as a curiosity... do you really this this creature exists -- "a Representative who won't take a bribe or a quid pro quo 'contribution'" -- because I'm afraid they've all become extinct. If they ever existed at all.

Andria

There are a few. But the point was - no fascism - or what people who hate industry refer to as 'crony capitalism' (where there is no true capitalism involved) .... no fascism exists without gov't attempting to control. The 'cause point' is gov't, not industry. Companies who have or can create an 'in' on gov't will do so for their own interest, but without gov't, they'd have to compete in the market on their own efforts for profit. Those that can't, will fade away - which is how it should be. But with fascism, they strive on the backs of the gov't and of the consumers, and producers who only benefit from their own abilities, not on who they know, are forced to 'exit the market'. As a result, we get non-quality products at higher prices. And less true 'safety' in products as well.

This part got lost in the forum ether (getting close to a shutdown soon)

If the deeming goes as planned, cigarette companies with their antiquated low efficient products may benefit greatly from their connection with gov't, true entrepreneurs (with no gov't connection) who make innovative products that we all like and use, will lose out and vapers may return to smoking or never get a chance to vape - hence the 'less true safety' part of the above.

 

[Steamix]

Besides, the costs of treating cigarette caused diseases are far greater than the tax revenue governments could generate from taxing e-cigs at 100%.

Well, there is still a lot of arguing and discussions about that point. Lung cancer is said to be fairly quick and pretty 'effective' in doing people in...

But that kind of sordid how-much-does-a-human-life-cost discussion ain't ma thang at all.

But I suspect BP got a stake in that too, and not just for peddling their rather ineffective cessation pills and plasters:

BP doesn't make a dime on people who do NOT need to be treated....

 

[AndriaD]

Well, there is still a lot of arguing and discussions about that point. Lung cancer is said to be fairly quick and pretty 'effective' in doing people in...

Amen. My dad found out he had small-cell lung cancer in the form of a tumor growing through the lung wall into the aorta. Inoperable; radiation just made it grow. It took only about a year and a half from diagnosis to funeral. For much of that time, he was relatively symptom-free; the radiation made him feel worse than the cancer itself, until right near the very end.

But that kind of sordid how-much-does-a-human-life-cost discussion ain't ma thang at all.

It's kinda funny because in the dark ages, perhaps even into the middle ages to some extent, the concept of the worth of one's life, if someone took it, was a real thing; nobles and churchmen were naturally valued a great deal more highly than merchants and peasants. It's only in very modern times that the concept of the individual has been regarded as "priceless." Funny how BP is trying to take the world back to feudalism.

But I suspect BP got a stake in that too, and not just for peddling their rather ineffective cessation pills and plasters:

BP doesn't make a dime on people who do NOT need to be treated....

Exactly right; I've thought all along that they MOST object to losing not the piddly NRT sales, but the FAAAAAAAAAAR more costly cancer and other major-illness snake oil. If a) they're right and smoking causes all manner of grievous illness, then b) if we all quit smoking and dying of it, they're gonna lose a LOT!!!! of revenue. Hoist by their own petard, they are; they're just mad not to hold the patent on that petard.

Andria